[Maul] Maul moving forward (or backwards?)

[Mandrason]

Hi,

I've encountered a situation yesterday that I wasn't completely sure about and would like some clarification:

Red takes the ball into a Maul and the maul is stationary for 2-3 seconds. Green is stronger in the maul and drives the maul back 10-15 metres towards the red try line. Red by then somehow manages to get the ball out and play goes on.
At the time I let play on because the maul was moving the whole time, therefore it wasn't stationary. Green players complained that they should have gotten the turnover scrum

[LAWS]Law 17.6 (a)
A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for
longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.[/LAWS]

How is forward defined in this context? Does it have to move forward in the direction of the opponents try line (from the perspective of the team who took the ball into the maul) or does forward simply mean not sideways(how I interpreted it)?
Any advice? Correct or wrong call?

 

[The Fat]

How is forward defined in this context? Does it have to move forward in the direction of the opponents try line (from the perspective of the team who took the ball into the maul) or does forward simply mean not sideways(how I interpreted it)?
Any advice? Correct or wrong call?

^^^This

 

[irishref]

From how you describe it, you made the correct decision.

 

[Dickie E]

^^^This

Not for me. If the maul is moving up or down the field I'd play on.

 

[OB..]

Surely the word forward is in there simply because moving sideways is equivalent to stationary.

In this case Red got the ball out anyway before the maul became stationary, so I don't know what Green were complaining about.

 

[Mandrason]

Surely the word forward is in there simply because moving sideways is equivalent to stationary.

In this case Red got the ball out anyway before the maul became stationary, so I don't know what Green were complaining about.

They complained because they felt that it must move towards their try line. I explained to the captain that if they wouldn't have pushed as hard as they did, they would have gotten the scrum which he then accepted. But there still were some discussions after the game as it all lead to a try (didn't decide the game). I just wanted to reassure myself that I didn't get that terminology wrong

 

[Decorily]

For me a player in possession of the ball can only be moving forward if moving closer to opponents goal line and a forward pass is in the direction of opponents goal line. How can a team in possession of a ball in a maul be moving forwards when moving backwards??

Definition says "....towards a goal line" but law also refers to moving "forward".

I would have been giving directions to 'use it' long before being driven that distance back and failing a successful 'use' a turnover would have been awarded!!

 

[Pegleg]

Ball is in the maul taken in by RED.

In amongst all the bodies BLUE get hold of the ball and are driving the maul towards RED's goal line.


Scenario 1

You are unaware BLUE has pinched the ball do you blow and give them a scrum when they are driving towards RED's Line?


Scenario 2

You are aware BLUE has pinched the ball do you blow and give them a scrum when they are driving towards RED's Line?

 

[beckett50]

As you describe it you should have called "Use It" to red.

The maul needs to go forward and the LotG define and refer to forward as being toward the opposition goal line by the team in possession of the ball.

Green may feel aggrieved because they believed that the maul had become stationary - they had stopped the drive - at which point Red should have been advised that this is the first stop that is permitted, and then once it started moving backward you should have told the Red half back to use it now. Failure so to do would result in a scrum with the put in by Green - unless the maul was formed directly from a catch from a kick ahead.

 

[Decorily]

In amongst all the bodies BLUE get hold of the ball and are driving the maul towards RED's goal line.


Scenario 1

You are unaware BLUE has pinched the ball do you blow and give them a scrum when they are driving towards RED's Line?


Scenario 2

You are aware BLUE has pinched the ball do you blow and give them a scrum when they are driving towards RED's Line?[/QUOTE]1

1 If I am unaware then I can't act on it even if I would have had I been aware!!

2 I personally always try to nail my colours to the mast early with a call of "Red maul". So everyone knows what outcomes to expect. So scenario 2 would not arise.

 

[Mandrason]

Scenario 1

You are unaware BLUE has pinched the ball do you blow and give them a scrum when they are driving towards RED's Line?


Scenario 2

You are aware BLUE has pinched the ball do you blow and give them a scrum when they are driving towards RED's Line?

To be honest I had a feeling that blue might have pinched the ball, but I couldn't see the ball while the maul was moving. Scenario 1 basically describes my scenario, therefore I played on. Scenario 2 also play on, no difference IMO. If in any of those scenarios the maul becomes stationary, blow the whistle and scrum to BLUE as RED took the ball into the maul.

The maul needs to go forward and the LotG define and refer to forward as being toward the opposition goal line by the team in possession of the ball.

That's where my initial question was heading: Can we really define forward for a maul? E.g. if we are uncertain which team has possesion of the ball in the maul?

 

[chbg]

Good question, because it doesn't happen that often, hence the variance in opinion.

Maul Definitions include "Players involved ... must be moving towards a goal-line."

I agree that 'forward' in this context means towards a goal-line, as opposed to crabbing sideways. There is no generic definition for 'forward'; it is a leap to translate the Law 12 definition to other Laws.

The team that took the ball into the maul may lose possession of it without that being obvious outside the maul. You should not penalise the ball-winning team if they are now pushing forwards. (Pegleg's Scenario 2). At the very least they should be given the benefit of a scrum (if the ball does not appear) as far down the FoP that they can move the maul.

The 'maul stationary' is one way to determine an unsuccessful end to the maul; if the maul is still moving towards either goal-line then wait to see if the ball appears, or is pushed over the original team's own goal-line.

Correct decision.

 

[OB..]

Good question, because it doesn't happen that often, hence the variance in opinion.

Maul Definitions include "Players involved ... must be moving towards a goal-line."

I agree that 'forward' in this context means towards a goal-line, as opposed to crabbing sideways. There is no generic definition for 'forward'; it is a leap to translate the Law 12 definition to other Laws.

The team that took the ball into the maul may lose possession of it without that being obvious outside the maul. You should not penalise the ball-winning team if they are now pushing forwards. (Pegleg's Scenario 2). At the very least they should be given the benefit of a scrum (if the ball does not appear) as far down the FoP that they can move the maul.

The 'maul stationary' is one way to determine an unsuccessful end to the maul; if the maul is still moving towards either goal-line then wait to see if the ball appears, or is pushed over the original team's own goal-line.

Correct decision.

Agreed. I was just about to make the same points.

 

[ChrisR]

"Forward" is the direction in which the maul is headed regardless of possession.

In general play if the team in possession is being driven toward their own goal the team not in possession is deemed to be moving forward should the ball become unplayable.

 

[didds]

For me a player in possession of the ball can only be moving forward if moving closer to opponents goal line and a forward pass is in the direction of opponents goal line. How can a team in possession of a ball in a maul be moving forwards when moving backwards??

Definition says "....towards a goal line" but law also refers to moving "forward".

I would have been giving directions to 'use it' long before being driven that distance back and failing a successful 'use' a turnover would have been awarded!!

so green in the OP may have had a scrum eg 10m upfield for them then?

what if had you not done that green had pushed red all the way to red's tryline - a substantially greater distance lets say - at which juncture the ball come unplayable and its a green scrum 5m out.

what do you think green would rather have?

didds

 

[DocY]

For me, the OP got it right in spirit, even if there's some debate in law. Play continued fairly without his intervention, ergo his intervention wasn't needed.

Rather than getting bogged down in the wording of the law, consider what the purpose of the law is - in this case, to stop a heap of bodies with little chance of the ball coming out.
The ref gave the situation a chance to resolve itself without evolving into the situation the law is there to prevent, and it did so.

 

[didds]

Absolutely agrtee with DocY ... otherwise you potentially penalise green in the OP through loss of territory, pressure etc because of red's actions/inabilities and/or green's strengths.

didds

 

[crossref]

I also think the decision in the OP was correct.

When green get a shove on it seems to me they are taking a calculated risk
- the reward they are looking for is territory, obviously
- the risk is : by prolonging the maul and by shaking it up like this, there is a chance red will get the ball out (as they did)

Normally the risk is going to pay off, this time it didn't...

 

[Mandrason]

Thanks for all your input guys, appreciate it

 

[ChrisR]

The OP decision was correct. Green gained territory by their drive. If Red were unable to get the ball away and the maul stalled then they would have gained ground and the scrum feed. credit to Red to get the ball out under pressure.